Is Bush legaly bound to see the war through?

Please excuse any ignorance in this question, i do not take much interest in politics these days due to the state of the system.....however.....

If a president, or any leader of a country, takes a country to war, as has George Bush, is he legaly bound to see it through even if he is'nt re-elected next time round.
I'm sure that if Bush was'nt elected next time round, he would not drop out of politics altogether and just retire quietly at home, however if the war was still ongoing (which it's a pretty safe bet that it would be) does Bush have to "finish what he started"? I ask this question as i think he has taken on a lot of responsibilty doing what he has done, and don't think he should be allowed to just pass the buck and forget about it whilst he retires in peace. I'm not saying he was right, nor that he was wrong, i'm just purely asking a about the legal side of responsibilities taken on as a president.

Thanks,

CX.

hmmm the only case i can think of is WW2 when Roosevelt took the us to war and Truman finished it - but that was because Roosevelt died in office!

The President has no legal responsibilities to continue anything he started as President, in fact that would be unconstitutional since those duties (like being Commander-in-Chief) would necessarily need to fall on the new President.

And other wars have spanned Presidential terms -- Kennedy started Vietnam, Johnson escalated it, and Nixon was President when it finally was over.

Originally posted by CX
I'm sure that if Bush was'nt elected next time round, he would not drop out of politics altogether and just retire quietly at home, however if the war was still ongoing (which it's a pretty safe bet that it would be) does Bush have to "finish what he started"?

Bush cannot run for president again anyway. He has served 2 terms and that's all a president can serve. So in 2008, someone else will take over where he leaves off.

can they at least be required to contribute a portion of their retirement check to help pay all the bills that they've racked up in our name?

Originally posted by dawnstar
can they at least be required to contribute a portion of their retirement check to help pay all the bills that they've racked up in our name?

Now that would be something to see. Pres. Bush paying on the War debt with his retirement fund. Maybe they should adopt that into a law.

Well, his dad had no compunctions about dumping some international, errrm....troubles in Clinton's lap when he took office, so no...it's not required that he stay the course or finish it up prior to him leaving office.

Originally posted by Bripe Klmun
Well, his dad had no compunctions about dumping some international, errrm....troubles in Clinton's lap when he took office, so no...it's not required that he stay the course or finish it up prior to him leaving office.

It is called 'passing the buck.'
And in addition to what you have mentioned, Clinton likewise dumped some "international, errrrm....troubles in this current Bush's lap.

And no, Bush is not required or legally bound to see this war through. That would be like saying that Eisenhower or Johnson was legally bound and required to see the Vietnam War through, which did not happen, and with no legal repercussions.





seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by Bripe Klmun
Well, his dad had no compunctions about dumping some international, errrm....troubles in Clinton's lap when he took office, so no...it's not required that he stay the course or finish it up prior to him leaving office.

It is called 'passing the buck.'
And in addition to what you have mentioned, Clinton likewise dumped some "international, errrrm....troubles in this current Bush's lap.

You're absolutely right. I didn't mean to come off as though no party is innocent of this.

Do you mean the war in Iraq or the War on terror ?

We are all forced and obligated to fight the War on Islamofascism/terror because we simply have no choice. They (al Qaeda etc) declared war and by not fighting back we are merely chickens waiting for the slaughter.

If you mean Iraq thats not really a war any more they are in the process of voting and the USA & Co are morally (maybe not legally) obligated to stay until Iraqi's can provide there own security, no matter who the President is.

Thats my opinion anyways

Really the West just has to concentrate on two things in the immediate future, stop at all costs agressive states and organisations obtaining Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Render Oil obsolete, ie invent engines that run on water or solar etc , this in turn will stop the massive money flow to the middle east (which in turn trickles out to Islamofascist organisations) and as a huge side benefit be the biggest help of any kind to our Enviroment.

With all that spare money at last the world can start to help the Worlds needy instead of being forced to spend a collective Trillions on Defence and Wars.

Damn i just had a good ramble and somehow managed to change the subject alot lol.

Why is he sooo sure we will see this war thru the end?

He's stated so many times. I dont think even he thinks it would be over by 2008.

IMO, he intends to shake up things in order to stick around...I know, i'm always saying these things that make no sense. Right?

I have a gut feeling SOMETHING will happen and the laws will be changed. But i am crazy.